The GOP has come up with a clever yet bizarre line of attack on Barack Obama: How dare he pass over Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden as his running mate?

As WSJ’s Amy Chozick reported last night, Team McCain debuted a new spot, “Passed Over,” at 3 a.m.:

The timing is a reference to Hillary Clinton’s national security ad during the Democratic primary and the same time the Obama campaign sent out its text message announcing Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the vice-presidential nominee.

“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why?” an announcer says in the 30-second spot.

The answer? “For speaking the truth.”

The ad, which has not yet been released [as of 6:29 yesterday evening], then ticks off a litany of criticism Clinton used against Obama in the prolonged primary, according to a transcript sent to reporters.

“You never hear the specifics,” Clinton says.

“On the Rezko scandal,” the voice says.

“We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama,” Clinton says in footage from the primaries.

“Senator Obama’s campaign has become increasingly negative,” Clinton says in another scene.

The announcer closes by saying “The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it.”

The ad is the latest sign that the presidential contest has grown increasingly personal. It’s also proof that the some times bitter battle between the two Democratic senators has provided useful fodder to the Republican opposition.

The campaign also quickly emailed around a CNN Political Ticker story headlined “Some in Clinton circle ’outraged’.”

Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

“Set aside that Obama said she’d be on anybody’s short list, set aside anybody’s feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her,” a former Clinton strategist told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan…for God’s sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid.”

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were “outraged,” over how the process was conducted.  “You can’t put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics,” this person said. “Barack never even said to her, ‘Here’s how I envision the job’– not one discussion with her about [the position].”

“They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now,” this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it.”

Not to be outdone, Bill Kristol weighs in with a blog post entitled “The Democrats’ Glass Ceiling.”

So Hillary Clinton gets about 18 million votes in 2008, and isn’t even considered for–she apparently isn’t even given the courtesy of being consulted–the vice presidential pick. Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it’s the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).

What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)–neither Biden nor Hillary has any.

Stoking the lingering resentments of the Hillary camp is probably smart politics, although doing it so brazenly could backfire and cause more of them to realize that they’re playing into the Republicans’ hands.  But the idea that Clinton was somehow owed a VP offer is silly.

By Kristol’s logic, Mike Huckabee should be McCain’s running mate.  At the very least, he should be be seriously interviewed and Mitt Romney should get the nod, under the theory that Huckabee only surpassed him because he stayed in the race long after it was over.  Does anyone think McCain is seriously thinking about Huckabee?

Did Obama take “seriously” the idea of putting Hillary on the ticket?  I can’t imagine he didn’t given the delegate math.  But he and his team surely came to the conclusion that giving her the nod would be a disaster, given the hundreds  of sound bytes she gave the GOP and the complications that Bill Clinton brings to the mix.  Having decided that, pretending to interview her for the gig would have arguably been more insulting than moving on to other candidates.

And, please, let’s not pretend that Hillary Clinton has anything like Joe Biden’s foreign policy gravitas.  It’s been his bread and butter since Hillary was in law school.  She’s a junior Senate backbencher whose “experience” until eight years ago consisted of being married to a powerful man.  Did she learn a lot as a result of that partnership?  Sure.  Is it comparable to chairing the Foreign Relations Committee?  Not hardly.

Republican delegrate graphic via CNN.

Christopher Hitchens lampoons the shallow discourse of our political campaigns.

It is cliché, not plagiarism, that is the problem with our stilted, room-temperature political discourse. It used to be that thinking people would say, with at least a shred of pride, that their own convictions would not shrink to fit on a label or on a bumper sticker. But now it seems that the more vapid and vacuous the logo, the more charm (or should that be “charisma”?) it exerts. Take “Yes We Can,” for example. It’s the sort of thing parents might chant encouragingly to a child slow on the potty-training uptake. As for “We Are the People We Have Been Waiting For” (in which case, one can only suppose that now that we have arrived, we can all go home), I didn’t think much of it when Rep. Dennis Kucinich used it at an anti-war rally in 2004 (”We Are the People We Are Waiting For” being his version) or when Thomas Friedman came across it at an MIT student event last December. He wrote, by the way, that just hearing it gave him—well, you guess what it gave him. Hope? That’s exactly right.

Pretty soon, we should be able to get electoral politics down to a basic newspeak that contains perhaps 10 keywords: Dream, Fear, Hope, New, People, We, Change, America, Future, Together. Fishing exclusively from this tiny and stagnant pool of stock expressions, it ought to be possible to drive all thinking people away from the arena and leave matters in the gnarled but capable hands of the professional wordsmiths and manipulators. In the new jargon, certain intelligible ideas would become inexpressible. (How could one state, for example, the famous Burkean principle that many sorts of change ought to be regarded with skepticism?) In a rather poor trade-off for this veto on complexity, many views that are expressible (and “We the People Together Dream of and Hope for New Change in America” would be really quite a long sentence in the latest junk language) will, in turn, be entirely and indeed almost beautifully unintelligible.

And it’s not as if anybody is looking for coded language in which to say: “Health care—who needs it?” or “Special interests and lobbyists—give them a break,” let alone “Dr. King’s dream—what a snooze.” It’s more that the prevailing drivel assumes that every adult in the country is a completely illiterate jerk who would rather feel than think and who must furthermore be assumed, for a special season every four years, to imagine that everyone else “in America” or in “this country” is unemployed or starving or sleeping under a bridge.

While Barack Obama is the obvious target of this lament, it’s only because he’s its most adept practitioner in quite some time. Newt Gingrich is his most recent Republican analogue and he didn’t have Obama’s charm and charisma. Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was focus-tested and he was a master of using buzz words; he did, at least, put this all to use in the service of some genuine policy wonkery. His most recent book, Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works, manages to work in several of the keywords into the title.

The bottom line, though, is that it works. Campaigns are about broad visions and politicians who get into the policy muck almost always lose.

via Ericka Anderson

Ralph Nader is making another presidential run, ABC News’ Rich Klein reports.

Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he’s convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall. Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.

Nader said he filed papers with the Federal Election Commission and launched a Web site after Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Ohio congressman, announced his decision to withdraw from the presidential race last week.

He was set to announce that he had formed an exploratory committee Wednesday, even before former Sen. John Edwards made it known that he’d be ending his candidacy. But with Edwards — who has made economic populism and ending poverty cornerstones of his campaign — leaving the Democratic field, Nader said, he feels his candidacy is more urgent than ever. “When Kucinich threw in the towel, now you have Edwards gone — who’s going to carry the torch of democratic populism against the relentless domination of powerful corporations of our government?” Nader said. “You can’t just brush these issues to the side because the candidates are ignoring them.”

He has harsh words for the leading Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, chastising them for failing to advance aggressive plans to tax corporations more fairly, and to fight for a vastly higher minimum wage. Obama, he said, is a particular disappointment, since his background suggests that he knows the importance of progressive issues yet hasn’t fought for them in the Senate. “His record in the Senate is pretty mediocre,” Nader said. “His most distinctive characteristic is the extent to which he censors himself. He hasn’t performed as a really progressive first-term senator would.”

Ralph Nader: Because Barack Obama Just Isn’t Liberal Enough!

Seriously, the guy’s a vanity candidate who’ll simply serve as a spoiler, taking votes away from the Democratic nominee. The Republicans can certainly use the help this cycle.

Dennis Kucinich has called it quits.

Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job — U.S. congressman.

In an interview with Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday. “I will be announcing that I’m transitioning out of the presidential campaign,” Kucinich said. “I’m making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction.”

Kucinich has received little support in his presidential bid; he got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses. He did have a devoted following.

Kucinich, 61, is facing four challengers in the Democratic congressional primary March 4, and earlier this week he made an urgent appeal on his Web site for funds for his re-election. Rival Joe Cimperman has been critical of Kucinich for focusing too much time outside of his district while campaigning for president.

And he was this close, too.

Sadly, I’d somehow missed this news: “His decision comes a month after the death of his youngest brother, Perry Kucinich.” Sad news, indeed.

Video from AP:

Dennis Kucinich sued to force NBC to include him in MSNBC’s Nevada debates and Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson has issued an injunction ordering that he be included. NBC promises to appeal.

On the merits, I don’t see how Kucinich has a case. The basis on which a state judge could issue an order to a national television network on this matter is far from clear; broadcasting is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.

Moreover, it would seem obvious that a network has the right to invite whomever it wishes — and only those people — to participate in its programming. As Ed Morrissey notes, “the broadcast is the property of the network and it’s their decision to make.” Certainly, there’s no right to free airtime or to participate in debates.

Photo credit: New Hampshire Public Radio

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald explains what happened here.

The complaint (.pdf) filed by Kucinich is simple and straightforward. He alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC’s refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters — who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property — “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.”

This doesn’t explain why a state judge has jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute but it does present the facts of the case much better than the LAT story, which framed the dispute in terms of “fairness.”

The crux of Greenwald’s post is about conservatives screaming “judicial activism” every time a decision comes out that we don’t like. No doubt that happens a lot. More often than not, though, the problem is that most media outlets provide incredibly bad reporting on cases and then pundits react to that reporting rather than the case in controversy, about which we know little beyond what we’ve just read.

UPDATE: The Nevada Supreme Court overruled the order, “determining that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction in making the ruling. Additionally, the court ruled that Mr. Kucinich did not have an enforceable contract with the network.”

The latest quiz meme going around the blogosphere is the Electoral Compass USA, which asks 36 rather poorly worded survey questions on a wide variety of issues and then matches you up with the candidates. Amusingly, Ron Paul is far and away the closest to me.

Dan Drezner had the same outcome, much to his chagrin. He rationalizes the finding away thusly:

This, by the way, is why things like personality and leadership style are relevant to voting decisions (and are tough to capture in surveys). A candidate’s policy positions are not the only thing that matter. The way in which the candidate will try to implement these policies matters too. I would’nt vote for a candidate who shared my precise policy positions but decided to implement them by constitutionally questionable methods, for example. Process matters just as much as substance.

Steve Bainbridge, whose results paired him with Mitt Romney — his least favorite candidate — concurs.

Mostly, though, I think this just shows that these political compass surveys don’t work very well. For one thing, as Drezner notes, they don’t measure intensity — they simply treat all issues equally, regardless of how important they are to a particular voter.

More importantly, though, the questions don’t allow for nuanced answers. In this particular case, the survey is filled with double barreled questions that presume premises with which I disagree.

“People should have a background check and obtain a license before they can buy a gun,” I answered Yes to this because it makes sense to take prudent measures to keep guns away from felons and nutcases. But I’d only support relatively painless “instant” background checks.

At the same time, I agree that “Stricter gun control will not reduce crime.” This question, though, points to another problem with the survey: Negative questions. They should all be in the form of “Stricter gun control will reduce crime.” Introducing a negative and then asking people to agree/disagree is confusing.

“An additional carbon tax on fuel will effectively reduce pollution” presumes a rather specific degree on knowledge which most people simply lack. Whether they understand the science behind it is irrelevant in measuring ideology, I suppose, but I’d wager few people even understand what a carbon tax is.

“The US should never sign international treaties on climate change that limit economic growth” merges two issues in a dubious way.

“The US had every right to invade Iraq” is a legal question rather than an ideological one. But it’s pretty complicated, regardless. One who says, “Yes, because Iraq violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire treaty and several UN Security Council resolutions” is displaying very different ideological beliefs than someone who says, “We’re the United States of America and can invade whomever we goddamn well please!”

“The US is safer because of the invasion of Iraq.” I’d say we’re not in the short term but might be in the longer term. Regardless, we need to keep trying to buy time for an effective government to stabilize. Where does that fit on the quadrant/candidate map?

“The best way to reduce the federal deficit is to raise taxes.” The best way is stunning economic growth, followed by spending restraint. But tax cuts are good, too. So, while I disagree fundamentally with Dennis Kucinich on this question, we’d give the same answer.

“The government has no responsibility to provide retirement funds.” There’s so such inherent responsibility. We’ve created one, however, by seven decades of forced contributions to Social Security. So, do I agree with Ron Paul? Hillary Clinton?

“The federal government should reduce income inequality.” I’m a right-libertarian but would say Yes if No is my only alternative. At a minimum, we need to provide a safety net for those who truly can’t work owing to illness or handicap.

“Iran is not an imminent threat to world peace” is a ridiculously complicated question. It’s certainly a dangerous country led by a rogue regime. But it’s largely a regional threat and I’m not sure it’s “imminent.”

“The US should decrease its spending on defense” is something I’ve argued for years. It doesn’t make sense right this minute, though, given that we’re deployed to two major wars.

There are probably a dozen or more such examples but I shan’t belabor the point any longer.

Ronald Bailey has a helpful article over at Reason Online that describes each candidates stance on evolution. The Democrats all believe in evolution.

The Republicans…well you have quite a selection there. You have guys like Mike Huckabee who think the world was literally made in a week. To more sophisticated views like those held by Romney that can be described as theistic evolution. That evolutionary processes are at work, are what has shaped man, but that there is no reason that God might not have had some role in the process. McCain seems to be all over the map. In 2007 he stated he believed in evolution (which is a good thing since evolution is a fact*). However, in 2005 he expressed sympathy for the psuedo-scientific concept of intelligent design and that it should be taught in schools. In 2006 McCain also expressed sympathy for those who hold the view that the world was created in a week. Rudy Guiliani seems to have been very coy with his views on evolution, and true to form Dr. Congressman Ron Paul has a rather kooky view for a medical doctor that evolution is bogus.

Overall, on the Republican side I find Romney’s views the most appealing. However, given some of his speeches on religion and so forth, I don’t find him a very appealing candidate in general. That and some of his economic views also leave me quite cold.

Damn, but it is going to be a long year. Good thing I have access to lots of good scotch.
_____
*For the scientifically illiterate: Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory is just a theory…just like the theories of gravity are just theories, but please feel free to disbelieve them then jump off a building. If you’ve found this footnote offensive, please read the long winded explanation below the fold.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about those who support creationism, intelligent design and oppose the concept of evolution is that they are amazing hypocrites. They will say things like, “Evolution is only a theory.” No. This. Is. Wrong. Evolution–i.e. that organisms change at a genetic level–is an observed fact. The theory man has constructed to explain the myriad of facts that fall under the broad umbrella of evolution is “just a theory”. However, this applies to other real phenomena such as gravity. Take a penny and drop it. It falls to the floor. It always falls to the floor. Of all the billions and billions of times people have dropped pennies (hear on earth) there is not one instance where the penny has not fallen to the floor. Do we fully understand gravity and how it works? No. Is there a single theory of gravity? No. Are there “gaps” in the theory? Yes. So why don’t all these people who fight so vigorously against evolution fight just as vigorously against gravity? My guess is because they know that people will regard them as irrational kooks who really and truly are anti-science. But evolution and evolutionary theory…why that is hard to understand without lots of set-up costs. So evolution is a “soft target”. But the exact same arguments that the Creos use against evolutionary theory can be leveled against any and all scientific theories. The bottom line is that these people are either ignorant or willfully obtuse. In either way, I don’t see it as a good thing in a candidate for any office including dog catcher.

An amusing anecdote from ABC News’ Rick Klein:

So I’m in the ABC workspace at the Radisson in Manchester, and who walks in but … Dennis Kucinich. No big deal, right? Lots of candidates milling around these parts these days. But then he proceeds to RAID THE MIXED NUTS CAN on the ABC snack table. Not like a cashew or two — big handfuls. His wife is munching too. This would be the same Dennis Kucinich who FILED FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ABC over the weekend to try to block our debate from going forward, arguing that he was being unfairly excluded. I walked over to his wife, Elizabeth, who was also enjoying the snacks. “So sorry,” she said, “but we’re absolutely starving.” I said to her, “Come on, now, you sued us, and now you’re stealing our nuts?” She shrugged — semi-apologetically, in my estimation. And with that, Rep. Kucinich grabbed a mini-can of Pringles and walked away.

Insert your own punch line here.

Photo credit: Jordan Hoffman via Google

The fabled village of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire has cast their first-in-the-state vote in the first-in-the-nation primary. Their selections, John McCain and Barack Obama, will likely be the choice of the rest of the state as well, if the polls are right.

Predictions:

For what it’s worth (which, admittedly, probably isn’t much), here’s how I see it ending up:

Analysis:

One and two could flip and three, four, and five are neck-and-neck. Romney is ahead of McCain in a couple of the polls, which are all over the map. Huckabee is third, but within the margin of error of fourth, in all the polls. And Guiliani is ahead of or tied with Paul (but within the margin of error) in all the surveys:

The trend lines, though, are all McCain for first place and Giuliani seems to be plummeting.

For the Democrats, it would be a major upset if the 1-2-3-4 finish went any different than the numbers above, as there are no recent polls in which the order varies. Technically, a few are within the margin of error. Looking at the aggregate, though, even if one assigns the lowest point in the +/-3 range to Obama and the highest to Clinton, he still wins. Ditto Clinton v. Edwards.

The trend lines are stark, as well, with Obama surging, Clinton plummeting, and Edwards rising slightly:

Impact on the Race:

For the Republicans, not much is likely to change. If Thompson were inclined to drop out before the New Hampshire primaries, one would think he’d have done it by now. And, while back-to-back fifth or sixth place finishes would seem to be devastating to Giuliani, he has been intending a large state strategy all along.

I don’t see how Thompson or Romney win the nomination, though, if these results hold. McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani — probably in that order — all have very plausible scenarios. They’re statistically tied in the national polls and have strong leads in various key early states in the free-for-all that’s about to ensue. Ron Paul will likely continue to run but, eventually, will stop getting invited to the debates and become a non-factor in the campaign.

One would think Richardson would call it quits after this. He’s not even registering in the national polls and there’s no reason to think he’ll win any of the early primary states. It’s a three-way race, though, regardless of what he decides in that regard.

Obama becomes the clear frontrunner; after tonight, it’s his race to lose. He’ll likely go on to win South Carolina, with Edwards finishing second. My guess is that Clinton continues to give him a fight and rebounds to win several states. Unless she implodes and it becomes a two man race, though, I don’t see a plausible scenario whereby Edwards gets the nomination.

Other Predictions:

• Scott Elliot, Election Projection

• Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters

• Eric Lindholm, Viking Pundit

• Neal Ford, Label Free Zone

• Clarence Claus, Race 4 2008

• John Hawkins, Right Wing News

• Sister Toldjah

Update (Dave Schuler)

Pursuant to James’s request I’m going to weigh in with a few predictions about the New Hampshire primaries. On the Republican side I think it will be McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani. On the Democratic side it will be Obama, Clinton, Edwards. On both sides no more than a couple of delegates will separate the “winner” from the third place finisher. Whatever the candidates claim there won’t be a decisive victory on anybody’s part.

I expect Bill Richardson to bow out after the New Hampshire primary. With his departure will also go nearly the only substantive differences on policy among the Democratic candidates. From here on out the debates will be about style, image, and feelings. The race will be far from over for Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards for that matter). I suspect she’ll miss those Florida delegates. And don’t forget those superdelegates.

On the Republican side the only candidate that might conceivably bow out is Thompson but I’m not sure why he’d bow out. His what for lack of a better word we’ll call “campaign” is so low-key that he can keep right on doing whatever it is that he’s doing at least through Feb 5.

Update (Steven Taylor):

James asked for my prediction, so here it is:

ABC has drawn a line and three did not make the cut.

ABC News is eliminating Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from its prime-time presidential debates Saturday night because they did not meet benchmarks for their support.

The Democratic debate three days before the New Hampshire primary will include Iowa caucus winner Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. It starts at 7 p.m. EDT. Before the Democrats take the stage in Manchester, N.H., Republicans Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will hold their own forum. ABC anchor Charles Gibson will moderate both debates.

The network set up benchmarks to narrow the field. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

ABC said the rules were quite inclusive, and that none of the candidates objected ahead of time. Its decision was made easier by Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropping out of the race Thursday night.

It’s hard to argue with any of these cuts; none of the cutees are factors. The inclusion of Ron Paul, who got a respectable 10 percent in Iowa, was also the right move.

There’s an argument to be made, of course, that the television networks shouldn’t be the ones making these choices. Poll-driven benchmarks are problematic, especially when 49 states have yet to allocate any delegates. Still, culling needs to happen in order to allow the voters to focus on the legitimate candidates and it’s not quite clear how else we would achieve this. The political parties have an obvious disinclination to telling their senators and representatives and governors that they’re not ready for prime time and they also want to avoid the appearance of hand-selecting the candidates.

Bill Richardson has joined Dennis Kucinich in directing his supporters to vote for Barack Obama in the second round if they do not achieve the 15 percent viability threshold.

Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent has the story — and a rundown on Richardson’s rather complicated strategery:

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

But Richardson’s modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama’s potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned. If Richardson’s field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa Caucuses. And if Edwards loses a large block of second-round voters, a group he seems to be relying on to break in his direction, it could irreparably damage his campaign.

Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls. And if Edwards’s numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Of course, since most of us have figured all along that Richardson was running for vice president, this may reflect his judgment that Obama, not Clinton or Edwards, will emerge as the nominee.

Photo credit: Photobucket via Google.

Dennis Kucinich has asked his supporters in Iowa to caucus for Barack Obama if (as expected) he himself is not viable after the first round of balloting.

Representative Dennis Kucinich urged his Iowa followers today to select Senator Barack Obama as their second choice at the caucuses on Thursday if his support is not strong enough to be viable in the 1,781 precincts across the state.

“Senator Obama and I have one thing in common: Change,” Mr. Kucinich said in a statement today.

The two spoke briefly by telephone before Mr. Obama flew here for an afternoon rally. In a statement, Mr. Obama took advantage of the opportunity to point out that he, along with Mr. Kucinich, opposed the war in Iraq. “He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities,” Mr. Obama said.

Four years ago, during his first presidential bid, Mr. Kucinich announced a similar second-choice partnership with John Edwards. At the time, aides to Mr. Edwards said it helped contribute to his second-place finish in the caucuses. This year, however, Mr. Kucinich has barely waged a campaign in Iowa. He has no paid organizers or offices in the state and he was not invited to participate in The Des Moines Register’s debate in December. Still, it is not uncommon to see faded Kucinich bumper stickers on cars at rallies for Democratic presidential candidates.

My guess is it won’t matter much. Still, it’s interesting that Kucinich is backing Obama rather than Edwards, especially given the history. To the extent Kucinich’s ideology is scrutable, it would appear to be a left populism and thus closer to Edwards that the pragmatist Obama.

I know several of our readers are tired of posts on Ron Paul but Fox News’ announcement that it would exclude candidates not polling in the double digits from their pre-New Hampshire primary debates has set off a firestorm, getting a sharp negative reaction from not only the blogosphere but the New Hampshire GOP.

ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox’s case infuriating supporters of Republican Ron Paul. The roster of participants for ABC’s back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday’s Iowa caucus become clear.

Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson received invites, leaving Paul and Duncan Hunter on the sidelines. The network said it had limited space in its studio — a souped-up bus — and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.

In a nationwide poll conducted Dec. 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent. Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll’s margin of error.

Both of the state party leaders are fuming.

This weekend’s presidential debates and forum will not include some nationally-known candidates, and the chairmen of the state Republican and Democratic parties are not happy. Fergus Cullen and Raymond Buckley say the decisions by ABC News, WMUR and, in Cullen’s case, FOX News, are inconsistent with the New Hampshire primary’s tradition of providing a level playing field for all candidates.

ABC News and WMUR-TV (Channel 9) confirmed today that they have established performance-based criteria for Saturday night’s pair of presidential debates. Those rules could leave several relatively well-known candidates on the outside looking in, including Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.

And Cullen confirmed that FOX News has invited only five presidential candidates to a GOP forum scheduled for Sunday night, leaving out Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. Cullen said the state GOP is in “ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate” and remains a forum co-sponsor, at least for now.

According to WMUR news director Andrew Vrees and a posting on the ABC News web site, in order to participate in the Saturday night back-to-back GOP and Democratic events at Saint Anselm College, candidates must meet at least one of three criteria:

– Place in the top four in the Iowa caucuses, which will be held on Thursday.

– Poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four reputable random sample New Hampshire telephone surveys sponsored by an established news organization and conducted and released by 9 a.m. on Friday, Jan. 4.

– Poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four reputable random sample national telephone surveys sponsored by an established news organization and conducted and released on or before 9 a.m. on Jan. 4.

[...]

In a statement, Cullen was critical of all sponsors of the debates and the forum. “Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first-in-the-nation primary,” he said. “The level playing field requires that all serious candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate — not just a selected few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.” He said that the state GOP “calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

It should be noted that Paul is by no means the only well-known figure being excluded. Still, he’s the one drawing the most fuss. Not surprisingly, Fox is getting accused of anti-Paul bias:

Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said it was a “big mistake” not to include his candidate, especially given Paul’s recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to explain the decision, but its calls had not been returned.

“There very well might be some bias,” Benton said. “Ron brings up some topics that aren’t very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq … that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don’t see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul.”

Josh Marshall agrees: “Paul’s out because he’s not a Fox News Bush-clone. Say whatever you want about the guy, Fox News shouldn’t be able to silence him because they don’t like his views.” Digby adds, “If this doesn’t prove that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the GOP establishment, nothing will. They are excluding Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate but including Fred Thompson, who is polling lower.”

It’s true that Paul is leading Thompson by an average of 7.0 to 3.4. In New Hampshire. But Thompson leads Paul by an average of 11.8 to 4.3 nationally.

No one’s whining about the exclusion of Duncan Hunter, whose candidacy is taken seriously by virtually no one. But Paul, who is barely registering in national polls, has a much more dedicated base of support and has been quite successful as a fundraiser. And did I mention that his supporters were unusually dedicated? Here’s an excerpt from a protest site some have put up (via the LAT):

“We need to send a message to Fox’s Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the U.S. is not Pakistan, yet! Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion, debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don’t like his message of freedom and liberty. Cover them up with e-mails and they will just say it was a mistake or miscommunication. Be respectful as all of the e-mail addresses below are just employees trying to keep their jobs with the world’s largest media monopoly.”

While I don’t think he can win, it’s hard to justify keeping him out of the debates at this early stage of the campaign. At some point, though, the networks are justified in narrowing the field to only the most viable candidates. Whatever value protest candidates might have in bringing light to fringe issues and viewpoints, the point of these “debates” is to help voters chose among the available choices.

Paul Mirengoff argues that Mike Huckabee is weak on national security because he’s blinded by his ideals.

My main objection to Huckabee — the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five — is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case. The real problem is that he’s too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee’s exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.

Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

Now, I haven’t taken Huckabee very seriously as a presidential candidate yet. Indeed, I lumped him in with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on my “People Who Won’t Get Elected President” back in January.

Nor would I quibble with Mirengoff’s characterization of Huckabee’s foriegn policy credentials. Granting that governors are generally the most attractive presidential candidates and few governors have any meaningful international affairs dealings, Huckabee would be on the low end of recent presidents in that regard.

Still, the idea that he’s disqualified from leading our foreign policy because he has moral principles and thinks we should run the country accordingly is baffling. Conservatives rightly lauded Ronald Reagan for his willingness to call the Soviets an “Evil Empire” and treat them accordingly — and rightly criticized him for abandoning principle and selling arms to Iran in an exchange for help in getting hostages released.

Further, the cases Mirengoff cites are ones where Huckabee’s instincts are correct.

We did in fact invade Iraq and create the conditions for chaos. We did in fact ask Iraqis to put their confidence in us and work with us in setting up a democratic state. Surely, we do owe them something having done that? Further, aside from moral considerations, leaving the Iraqis in a lurch would surely diminish our international credibility, making it harder to get support in the future.

Similarly, our practices at Guantanamo have been a public relations nightmare for us and a bonanza for our enemies. For precious little gain in useful intelligence, we’ve surrendered the moral high ground. We’re in a battle to, as the cliché goes, win hearts and minds. Failing to live up to our basic principles makes that much more difficult.

As Steven Taylor notes, one can derive these principles absent Huckabee’s evangelicalism. He notes, for example, that Colin Powell coined the “Pottery Barn Rule” with respect to Iraq. I’d note that Powell also favors closing Gitmo. As does John McCain, who knows something about the subject of torture.

Now, if you want to criticize Huckabee for letting his religious views get in the way of sane public policy, you might want to start with things like opposing condom distribution in Africa . . . .

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan passes on word that Huckabee is getting smeared by some social conservatives as insufficiently Christian.

A mysterious group calling itself Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency has begun waging a campaign against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, insinuating that not only is the Republican presidential candidate not a true conservative, he’s not a real Christian.

In fliers put under the doors of reporters at the Marriott in Des Moines, where Huckabee was staying Monday night, the organization, whose members are unknown, lays out its interpretation of how the former Baptist minister’s views run contrary to the Bible.

Huckabee’s support of educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants is portrayed, for instance, as “justification for violating the 8th commandment (stealing from U.S. citizens).”

So . . . Huckabee’s not religious enough for religious extremists but too moral for security extremists? That’s not a bad place to be, methinks.

While most of the major surveys have Hillary Clinton running away with the Democratic nomination, we shouldn’t lose sight of Dennis Kunich. Perhaps less substantive but also interesting is this report from Micah Sifry reports:

Democracy for America, the organizing network that grew out of the ashes of the Dean campaign, has announced the results of its “Pulse Poll” on the Democratic presidential race. With more than 150,000 votes cast, the winner is Dennis Kucinich, with 49,000. He did not get the 66% required to get DfA’s endorsement, however.

Truly a shame. That would have really shaken up the race.